One of the striking things about the submissions – both written and oral – received against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was the very high degree of support that now exists for acknowledging and extending rights to same-sex couples through the mechanism of civil unions. This stands in stark contrast to the positions many of these same people took when the Civil Unions Bill itself was being debated.

There’s more: the now popular Civil Union Act passed its Third Reading by only 65-55, and just a couple of days before, a 3News poll found 46% of people in support, while 45% opposed.

In fact what all this shows is that Civil Unions followed the same path as Homosexual Law Reform and protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Certainly there is a group of people whose opposition to these measures is based on dogma of some sort, usually a religious one. These folk try to live their lives according to a particular code based on a set of rules (and believe that everybody else should also, regardless of belief). But probably the larger group of opponents is one whose opposition is motivated by fear: either of a general sort or of specific undesirable outcomes should the law reform succeed.

Opposition based on fear has always been temporary. Before each of these previous reforms a significant proportion of the population were led to believe that it would tear the fabric of our society in some awful way. But, surprise, surprise, the sky did not fall. And now it is only a very small group who believe gay sex should be illegal, who believe it should be legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or who believe same-sex couples should not be able to have their relationships acknowledged and protected.

Perhaps unsurprisingly I am writing about this because, once again, the same dynamics are at work in the opposition to marriage equality. There is a group of people, almost exclusively from particular religious faiths, who strongly and sincerely believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution that should be defined by their own particular dogma. They usually say the State has no right to determine who can marry, and seem oblivious even to other religious faiths whose dogma supports marriage equality. They are fundamentally theocrats and oppose pluralism, one of the basic ideas of modern society. Their position does not seem to be one that can be influenced by logic or evidence.

But the larger group of opponents is, as usual, one motivated by fear. Typically they have been encouraged to hold these fears by those who know better and who are exploiting them. Most of the ‘arguments’ made against marriage equality, including most of the amendments proposed to the Bill have been based on imaginary fears:

No celebrant will be forced to solemnise a marriage against their will. The law states that no celebrant is obliged to marry a particular couple. This has been the law since 1955 and the “right to refuse” has never been denied.

No church will be forced to use its religious space for same-sex weddings if it does not approve of them, or do anything at all differently.

Nobody will be forced to say anything different, or not to express their beliefs. In fact the Bill will repeal s.56, which, while never used, made it an offence to deny the validity of a legally-conducted marriage. Despite the histrionics of some, nobody will be sent to prison for their beliefs.

The ethical and legal obligations for teachers will not change in any way. There are professional requirements that influence how teachers can and cannot express their personal views to students. The Bill does not change these.

Children will not be “denied the right to their biological mother and father”. Married same-sex couples being able to adopt will almost exclusively affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples (there are thousands, by the way) who currently have less security because of the relatively precarious legal status of their parents. The number of children made available for “stranger adoption” each year (who by definition are not being raised by their biological parents) is tiny. This Bill will have the effect that when the biological parents of a child choose adoptive parents, married same-sex couples can also be considered.

What will actually happen once this Bill passes is that some same-sex couples will choose to get married. Some of those will do so in churches that welcome them. Others will find independent celebrants they like, and who like them. People will be happier. And in time, as has happened everywhere else in the world where this reform has already occurred, most New Zealanders who currently oppose marriage equality will realise that their fears were groundless, and join the majority who already believe that, well, love is love.

What I found interesting that the when the Civil Unions Bill was being passed, public opinion was so evenly divided. Yet less than a decade later there is almost no opposition to civil unions, and in fact opponents of same sex marriage cite civil unions as so good, that there is no need to change the marriage law.

I’ll make a prediction. That by 2020, fewer than 20% of New Zealanders will be saying that they are opposed to same sex marriages being legal.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 4th, 2013 at 11:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Fair enough but what about freedom of conscience for businesses such as caterers, venue owners etc? Personally I don’t care if they discriminate either way, as long as they are free to do so.
Could someone please clarify for me.

“… religious faiths whose dogma supports marriage equality”
It would be interesting to know which faiths Kevin has in mind.
None of the major Christian faiths, not Judaism, not Islam, not Hinduism, and not Buddhism.

What I found interesting that the when the Civil Unions Bill was being passed, public opinion was so evenly divided. Yet less than a decade later there is almost no opposition to civil unions, and in fact opponents of same sex marriage cite civil unions as so good, that there is no need to change the marriage law.

That is completely disingenuous Mr Farrar.

The reason so many people were opposed to civil unions is because we all knew this day was coming. I remember the debate very well and part of the pro civil union camps mantra was “we don’t want marriage, just legal equality”.

And it was utter bullshit all along, exactly what opponents said it was.

This group of liberal progressives are among the most fundamentally dishonest, cunning, and down right destructive people this country as ever known, they bullshit and revise, they lie and the hiss at anything and anyone that gets in their way.

They want something and they are going to bloody well take it, it is as simple as that.

Ryan I’d like to apoligise to you for useing obscene language last time we spoke. It was stupid of me to do so. PG was right, as it does nothing for the KB community.
Anyway, I won’t do it again as you don’t deserve it no matter how big our differances.

Ryan I’d like to apoligise to you for useing obscene language last time we spoke. It was stupid of me to do so. PG was right, as it does nothing for the KB community.
Anyway, I won’t do it again as you don’t deserve it no matter how big our differances.

Again Ryan I’m sorry and I apoligise.

Cheers

No worries, Harriet. I appreciate you saying so. Plus, I’m a condescending fucking asshole at times, which I do my best to avoid, but not always successfully, so apologies if I let any of that slip through. You have my explicit permission to call me on it if I do. Thanks again for your words.

The sky is falling on marriage Mr Hague. A very insightful columnist wrote this –
“Is marriage a historical relic?
Politicians in the past often talked about marriage being the bedrock of society, and marriage certainly was the norm. The number of solo parents was a fraction of what it is today, and the concept of a couple having children without being married was almost foreign. In fact for many couples they married specifically so they could have children.

We seem to be in a very different world today. Personally I’m still a believer in marriage, and I am typing this from an apartment in London, as I have travelled to the UK to attend the wedding of one of my mates. I love seeing a couple commit to remaining together until death do them part.

But the statistics out last week from Stats NZ show marriage continues to be in decline, perhaps terminal decline. The marriage rate is now barely higher than the divorce rate.

So marriage is in terminal decline according to the author of this blog. So shouldn’t we strengthen traditional marriage? Rather than another liberal experiment where we call the promiscuous couplings of homosexual men marriage? Considering most of them don’t want marriage. Considering many of them have explicitly said that they want to destroy marriage. Considering that under the new British law gay couples will be excluded from adultery as grounds for divorce.

Gay marriage is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing society to accept homosexuality to be as good as the natural order of mum and dad and the kids.It can only weaken marriage still further and hasten its decline. So yes Mister Hague the sky is falling on marriage as the bedrock of our society.

It will add to the continuing homogenization of society, cut down the highs, pull up the lows.

It will contribute to the destruction of ideals that are essential for strong families, families that will always be 99.9% heterosexual.

It will fundamentally alter what marriage commitment is actually about resulting in a weak institution that will have such a broad meaning as to be effectively worthless.

Mr Hague is a nice guy, I have met him once and discussed things with him several times, I consider him to be very sincere.

However, that does not mean that that everyone else is like Mr Hague, I sincerely believe he is being honest about his respect for religious freedom on this issue, but I also sincerely believe that others just can’t wait to get down to the business of further reform.

There are many other horses in this race that people seem completely (deliberately?) oblivious to, and they are charging fast down the home straight right now.

Anyone that can’t see the dual agendas is astoundingly blinkered in my opinion.

Marriage law [case law] is all based upon hetrosexual relationships. This has nothing to do with gays.

If a gay bloke buys a car – his husband[wife] will automaticly own 50%. But why? He didn’t breed.

If a gay couple get divorced and case law is then changed to reflect the fact that ‘they’ didn’t breed, and the 50% property split is not then valid, then a man can then use that against a female who didn’t breed in their Marriage.

About the “special” ‘right-to-discriminate’ that some of you speak about- you do realise that service provision discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is already covered under the Human Rights Act 1993, don’t you? Like employment and accomodation access? And has been for the last two decades, and would continue to be even if the Marriage Equality Bill wasn’t going ahead? And is accepted by most mainstream New Zealanders apart from a pack of militant fundamentalist activists?

Yup, no need to support an institution that (when it works) is the only consistent cure for all those things – Mum and Dad in a committed stable permanent relationship.

The cultural and social nihilism continues and the younger generations continue to suffer.

The idea that straight couples will somehow lose something of their committment to one another if homosexuals are granted marriage licenses is a pretty nihilistic one if you ask me!

There was plenty of extramarital sex, plenty of failed marriages and plenty of illegitimate children in good old-fashioned god-fearing times. People just wasted more of their time and money on concealing it.

The advent of homosexual “marriage” is not the cause of anything except snide remarks and hidden giggles, it is the symptom of the diminishing respect for the institution of marriage and the commitment and sacrifices couples make to raise their children.

The population has been brainwashed about “equality”. Most people who can think straight will view homosexual “marriage” as narcissistic humbuggery until it all ends, when Western Civilisation collapses.

There was plenty of extramarital sex, plenty of failed marriages and plenty of illegitimate children in good old-fashioned god-fearing times.

No there wasn’t RRM this catastrophe began in the late 1960s when feminism (which is actually a Marxist trojan horse) began to do its damage. Before 1970 less than 2% of marriages ended in divorce and hardly any kids were being raised by the State most solo parents were widows or widowers though an abandoned woman could get a benefit and there were some of these.

You should really start reading some history book on the subject of the history of marriage and sex.

Yes like the New Zealand Year book

The numbers of dependent children in each of the three groups in 1956 were: dependent on married men, 684,846; dependent on widowers, 5,131; and dependent on widows, 12,862; a total of 702,839 dependent children out of a 1956 census total of 720,190 children under 16 years of age. The difference is accounted for mainly by the exclusion of children whose parents were legally separated; those whose parents where divorced and had not remarried; children who had lost both parents; and ex-nuptial children (the last two classes excluding cases of adoption).

See that 95% of all children under 16 were living with both their father and mother in 1956 ( some of these would be adopted children but the vast majority were the biological children of their parents) of those who were not half were living in a solo parent situation because their other parent was deceased

Marriage is the formalisation of the special relationship between men and women that has its origins in life itself, an institution that since time immemorial has concerned itself with copulation and the raising of any children. It has never concerned homosexual acts.

Well the Anglican Church of Canada (lets each diocese choose and several of the largest allow same-sex marriage), the Episcopal Church of the US (which is Angican in all but name), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the US and Canada, Quakers, The United Church of Christ (one of the oldest mainline Protestant faiths in the US), Old Catholics (aligned with the Anglican Church) in Holland, Unitarian Universalists, as well as many other Protestant, Pentacostal and Evangelical churches around Europe and North America all allow same-sex marriage.

To claim that Christian religion is united against same-sex marriage is completely inaccurate. The church I was raised in, a mainline Protestant faith, has been providing same-sex marriages since it was legalised there in 2005.

What gay couples are seeking is not actually marriage (i.e. a sexual
union leading to the generation of family), but partnership
recognition—a very different thing to marriage. By changing the
definition of marriage, you’re not actually giving gay couples
equality. Rather, you’re telling married people that they are not
actually in a marriage, but rather in partnership
recognition. You’re not bringing gay people up to equality. Rather,
you’re shifting married people over into a different institution
altogether.

Rightandleft: To claim that Christian religion is united against same-sex marriage is completely inaccurate.

The only way such churches can be for same-sex marriage, is by completely disregarding the Bible. They’ve done so long ago, so everything goes. They’re complete apostates, and will always choose what the world say above what God says.

Why all this hooha? If homosexuals want to marry why not let them? What has it got to do with me or anyone else? Let them live their lives however they want. The religious or religiously influenced always think the world will fall apart if people don’t follow their principles. Invariably it doesn’t. It will have no effect on the normal heterosexual couples who want to marry.

In the case of adopting children they still have to apply to adopt and prove their suitability. A few years down the track I would bet there will be far fewer gays bringing up children than useless dangerous heterosexual parents who should never have children at all. I suggest bad parents do mkore damage to society than homosexuals.

SB – I beg to differ about New Zealanders having their say about gay marriage. This was nowhere in national’s manifesto at the last 2 elections. Indeed John key gave the impression that national would concentrate on improving the economy and getting people back to work and put social engineering to one side. He famously has done nothing about the anti-smacking bill which 85% of New Zealanders disagreed with. But yet he is using his power and influence as Prime Minister to allow this bill to go through.

This bill is the most fundamental rewriting of the marriage act that has ever been before the New Zealand Parliament. If John key is so keen on it then he should put it to one side and include it in the party manifesto for the next election. That would enable the electorate to have their say about this legislation.

Furthermore this legislation has not been the subject of a referendum. If it were it would lose. As Kevin Hague himself has said on this subject, “minorities don’t do well in referendums”.

So the New Zealand public has not had their say either by way of a referendum or by way of the ballot box. Instead this legislation has been forced through Parliament at the bidding of a few homosexual activists and a hopelessly biased media.

1. A majority of submissions to the Select Cmte OPPOSED.
2. Australia has voted it down (twice)
3. The last six online polls all have a majority of the Public opposing
4. Latest Poll NZ Herald 56% against 39% fore.
5. Even the Whaleoil online poll opposed it (DPF & Cam can no longer claim “the majority” support this). They are both WRONG!
6. California overturned same-sex legislation after public reaction.

Evidence this is a boutique political agenda being pushed against the public’s will aided by liberal media distortion (“equality” semantics)

SB- That’s hopeless. It is a private members bill that will only pass because John Key supports it. He is the PM,he is in charge,it’s on him. The National caucus is following their leader and voting for it. It’s on the PM and National.
One thing about Helen Clark ,at least the country knew where she stood. Do you think the previous PM would ever let legislation through that she opposed? Not on your nelly.

But this PM is supporting this legislation. It is on him and his party. They are the government after all.

Harriet (1,430) Says:
April 4th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
“Like the Bible? That gives us a good picture of Marriage for the last 2000 yrs.”

Umm NO SUCH THING.
The bible stops with Pauls writings less to approx. 60 AD so covers only the first 47 of the last 2000 years and as a record of Jesus life & teaching + the acts of the apostles & very first years of the church. The bible is NOT 2000 years of back issues of “Modern Bride”!!

The Old Testament gives pictures of marriage BC (variously polygamy, bride purchase, raping then marrying women or at best arranged marriages). Interestingly the ideal most NZers have of marriage (love, commitment, respect between two people) is absent insofar as examples of marriage goes – although several same sex couples (e.g. David & Jonathan, Ruth & Naiomi) do show these ideals.
Fess up all who has had the words of Naomi(woman) to Ruth(woman) read at their wedding as the ideal of love & marriage?
“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html

The New Testament covers the life & teachings of Jesus & the Apostles + Paul. Condemns homosexual temple prostitution but the only words Jesus speaks on marriage (Matthew 19) is to condemn divorce & then identify himself & the disciples (eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven) with despised castrated slaves (made eunuchs) and homosexual men (born eunuchs).http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

I think the call to follow Christ is to do as Christ did and in some small reflection love as Christ loved. Not to judge (that’s the Lords prerogative a right devolved to those who claim his name). Not to fight “culture wars” that alienate civil society and set (actually a minority of) Christians up a judges and arbiters of what is right/good.

This will cost Key at the election. I hope that everyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage signs this pledge. It is a strange National government that puts this sort of legislation ahead of economic issues that could help New Zealand.

Xau,
There is so much that is inaccurate in what you have written, it’s difficult to know where to start. But for one thing, the Bible doesn’t stop with Paul’s writings – the last book was actually written by the Apostle John. And nor is there any evidence or suggestion that David and Jonathan and Naomi and Ruth were same sex couples. The OT desn’t pull any punches in making it clear where there were sexual relations between people it talks about.

Make no mistake, this homosexual activism isn’t over yet. Next on the legislative agenda will be laws to criminalize anyone who has a negative view of homosexual behaviours and lifestyles. And assuming I believe Hagues assurances (which I don’t) that religious liberties will not be affected, they will in time. There is nothing that these sordid sexual militants enjoy more is punishing institutions that don’t tow the progressive PC line. Also remember, Clark, Barnett, Carter & Benson-Pope all made assurances a mere 9 years ago that civil unions was nothing to do with gay marriage. They were all lying or course, civil unions merely served as a bridgehead.

Most insidious perhaps is the coming campaign (and no one, from primary school age to university will be immune from exposure to it) to combat “heterosexism”. Yes, you heard it here first: heterosexism is the (apparently) bigoted assumption held by most people that heterosexuality is the norm. The sexual militants who corral the political class around will have their way with this in due course too.

I cannot see anything that would encourage me to vote Labour myself. I tend to agree that homosexual “marriage” is inevitable. However, if MPs can continually to ignore the majority and pass this bill like they did the anti-smacking what will happen next?

It looks like my vote will either go to the Conservative Party or NZF.

Why can’t homosexuals accept that they are different and not be ashamed ?

Many probably do. However, the militant activists (like Hague) and others behind the scenes away from the coalface believe that broader society must assimilate to THEM. Tolerating the homosexual lifestyle, live and let live, and all the rest just isn’t enough.

John’s Revelation is est 70-95 AD but it doesn’t really tell us much about life or teachings. But ignoring content that lets accept NT is actually a marital relationships guide to the first 57-82 years of the last 2000. “That gives us a good picture of Marriage for the last 2000 yrs.” REALLY?!!

The couples mentioned may or may not have had a physical relationship (debate pointlessly forever). The plain fact is we recognise more of what we aspire to in marriage in those stories than in any OT story of marriage.

You can view all other sects of Chritianity as apostates if you like, but that doesn’t give you or any other Christian the right to claim all Christians are opposed to gay marriage. The way some religious leaders have been arguing it makes it sound like they think they can speak for all Christians when in fact they speak only for their particular church or sect. They have no right to speak for all Protestants, let alone all Christians. The fact is many, many Christian sects do not take a literal view of the Bible. Catholics, Anglicans, the UCC, they are a large part of the Christian faith and they don’t take the Bible literally. Those fundamentalists who do put the words of the Bible above all are entitled to their private beliefs, but they have no place in public policy and they have no right to claim they alone represent Christianity.

Now you are just being dishonest Xau.
You are exposed as making claims that are untrue, so you start evading and dissembling.
You would also be more persuasive if you didn’t use GLBT websites as your biblical authority.

bereal (2,466) Says:
April 4th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Wow. Already copping the thumbs down from some for my effort @ 3.34 The questions i posed were quite simple. Why not just answer them, if you have the courage of your conviction ? 3 questions…………any answers ?

Short Answer
“Why can’t homosexuals accept that they are different and not be ashamed ?”
The point is the love between gays/lesbians committing to a lifetime with their partner is no different in its essential nature, intensity, durability (well maybe more durable – the data to date from countries with same sex marriage is available shows much lower divorce levels at each comparable anniversary/duration though this could possibly be due to the backlog of long term stable same sex couples marrying in the first years of marriage availability)

“Why do homosexuals insist on having the same label, (married) as heterosexuals unless homosexuals are ashamed of what they are?”
Same love, same label.

“Whatever happened to, ‘Gay Pride.’ Was that just so much bullshit ?”
‘Gay Pride’ has a place. Just like NZers can be proud of & celebrate their individual cultural backgrounds while being proud NZers. Most people can cope with the idea that NZ you don’t have to be average to be normal. It’s only small minded people who think “I’m a NZer, I’m X and most NZers are X too so if you’re Y you’re not a NZer”.

Long Answer
Marriage matters to GLBT people in similar ways that it matters to everyone. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families. Below you can read about why the choice to marry is important to GLBT couples in committed and loving relationships.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
• The failure of the law to allow GLBT marriages sends out the message that it is okay to discriminate on the grounds of
sexual orientation and gender and that GLBT partners are not capable of the level of love and commitment associated with marriage.
• Marriage creates a unique bond between partners and their families from which GLBT partners are excluded.
• Marriage provides health and well-being benefits, and security for partners and children, from which GLBT partners and
their children are excluded
• Marriage will benefit from being seen as less discriminatory and more relevant.
• Polls show about 65% of New Zealanders support marriage equality and 75% believe it is inevitable.

AREN’T CIVIL UNIONS ENOUGH?
• Civil Unions offer almost all the same rights as marriage but there are some exceptions.
• There is not the same recognition of Civil Unions in some overseas jurisdictions as there is with marriage
• The state should not sanction and legislate for an institution that is denied to some citisens because of their sexuality.
• Marriage has a historic tradition and is often more widely understood.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGION AND MARRIAGE?
• In our society marriage is governed by civil law and not by biblical values, for example we allow marriage between people of
different faiths or no faith. We also allow divorce although some churches are against it. Using the religion argument
against GLBT couples is a double-standard.
• Some Christian churches currently solemnise GLBT marriages and are discriminated against because the Government
doesn’t recognise these marriages in the same way it recognises the opposite-sex marriages performed in other churches.
• Religious celebrants are free to refuse to marry couples whose relationship they don’t agree with and this freedom will
remain when marriage equality is achieved.

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
• The law does not say married heterosexual couples must have children. This is why we allow infertile couples to marry.
Using the infertility argument against GLBT couples is a double-standard.
• As many as 25% of same-sex couples are raising children. By allowing parents in these families the right to marry we are
providing their children with the same rights, respect and recognition as other children.
• Psychologists attest that children raised by same-sex couples are just as well adjusted, psychologically, sexually, intellectually
and socially as their peers.

WILL MARRIAGE EQUALITY CHANGE OR DIMINISH MARRIAGE?
• It will remove discrimination from marriage in the same way discrimination was removed when interracial couples in the United States were
allowed to marry in the 1960’s.
• The rules governing marriage have changed many times, for example, wives are no longer treated as the property of their
husbands, we now prohibit rape in marriage, and we allow divorce. But the basic definition of marriage as a lifelong
commitment between a loving couple has not changed and will not change.
• In countries which allow GLBT couples to marry, marriage still exists, no opposite-sex marriages have been harmed, and
the rates of younger heterosexual people marrying has actually increased

quite a good effort xau,
however, without taking you up point by point, consider….

Gay (homosexual) males do not commit to a relationship as heterosexual males do.
Homosexual males are way more promiscuous, in fact they are the most promiscuous
animals on earth. (wanna argue that point ?)

Homosexual love is not the same as heterosexual love.

As soon as you use the term, “celebrate” to bolster your point you have conceeded the argument.

Why not just accept the fact, that there are different relationships and they deserve different labels.

Why not, ‘celebrate’ that we are different and deserve different descriptions.

i can celebrate the fact that i am not a homosexual. You can celebrate your own truth.

“Homosexual males are way more promiscuous, in fact they are the most promiscuous animals on earth. (wanna argue that point ?)”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/13/the-most-promiscuous-anim_n_450017.html#slide=65560
If gays can out copulate the animals listed in the post above AND find time to take over NZ politics AND control the media AND infiltrate the schools/professions (etc, etc, “gay agenda”, etc, etc) they bloody well deserve to rule the country mate!

• iMP: Xau, I am prepared to take you on, point-by-point. You deserve a considered answer to your post.

Xau (2,466) Says: April 4th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
=Short Answer
“Why can’t homosexuals accept that they are different and not be ashamed ?”
The point is the love between gays/lesbians committing to a lifetime with their partner is no different in its essential nature, intensity, durability (well maybe more durable – the data to date from countries with same sex marriage is available shows much lower divorce levels at each comparable anniversary/duration though this could possibly be due to the backlog of long term stable same sex couples marrying in the first years of marriage availability)

• iMP: All the science research, incl. that led by gay academics shows that homosexual relationships are marketedly different, particularly amongst gay men. This has a big impact on the application of marriage to gay relationships especially in relation to childrens’ rights to safe environments, stable homes and gender-balalnce role modeling.

Xau: “Why do homosexuals insist on having the same label, (married) as heterosexuals unless homosexuals are ashamed of what they are?”
Same love, same label.

•iMP: This is a ridiculous basis for determining marriage. How do you quantify “love”. I love my rugby team, my country, my grandmother and my dog. Using this logic, you cannot deny the current restrictions on marriage (siblings, close relations, animals) nor can you deny other consenting adult sexualities, such as bigamy, polygamy, casual promiscuity, etc. The “ove” argument is a red herring and mis-applied.

Xau: “Whatever happened to, ‘Gay Pride.’ Was that just so much bullshit ?”
‘Gay Pride’ has a place. Just like NZers can be proud of & celebrate their individual cultural backgrounds while being proud NZers. Most people can cope with the idea that NZ you don’t have to be average to be normal. It’s only small minded people who think “I’m a NZer, I’m X and most NZers are X too so if you’re Y you’re not a NZer”.

• iMP: I argue with the premise that homosexuality is either a “culture” or a “gender.” It is a human sexual attraction. Why anyone should be “proud” of this especially or seek to promote it with festivals and marches is an example of the inherent insecurity and contrived nature of the political arm of this lifestyle assemblage. The marketing arm of this mentality has won over the naive and the liberal throngs with a semantic propaganda that constantly portray the realities of what it is as something else. “Gay” itself as an appropriated word is the first example. It is a superlative with emotive connotations designed to promote.

Xau: Long Answer
Marriage matters to GLBT people in similar ways that it matters to everyone. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families. Below you can read about why the choice to marry is important to GLBT couples in committed and loving relationships.

• iMP: The LGBTi community has for decaades derided marriage and opposed it absolutely. The recent fashionable conversion to the merits of marriage suggests another agenda altogether, rather than any real commitment by gay activists to marriage itself.

Xau: WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
-The failure of the law to allow GLBT marriages sends out the message that it is okay to discriminate on the grounds of
sexual orientation and gender and that GLBT partners are not capable of the level of love and commitment associated with marriage.
-Marriage creates a unique bond between partners and their families from which GLBT partners are excluded.
-Marriage provides health and well-being benefits, and security for partners and children, from which GLBT partners and
their children are excluded
-Marriage will benefit from being seen as less discriminatory and more relevant.
-Polls show about 65% of New Zealanders support marriage equality and 75% believe it is inevitable.

• iMP: The law does not fail to provide marriage to gays, who are as free to marry as anyone else. The only exclusion here is the gay contrivance that they must be allowed to marry same genders, a right not open to heterosexuals either. It is a self-perpetuated prophesy. Gays are no therefore excluded structurally, but on the basis of new definitions that they impose on an institution that has never recognised these new constructs. Similarly, gays currently deny polygamists, bigamists et al in this redefinition of marriage bill. Why? Are they not entitled to impose their sexual attraction contrivances on marriage too?

Xau: AREN’T CIVIL UNIONS ENOUGH?
-Civil Unions offer almost all the same rights as marriage but there are some exceptions.
-There is not the same recognition of Civil Unions in some overseas jurisdictions as there is with marriage
-The state should not sanction and legislate for an institution that is denied to some citisens because of their sexuality.
-Marriage has a historic tradition and is often more widely understood.

• iMP: The gay community said over and over and over that Civil Unions was all they needed (check the Hansards), and that the civil union innovation was not a beachhead towards gay marriage. This was a community lie. many MPs supported civil unions on the assurances given, by gay MPs like Chris Carter and others, that there was no need for gay marriage and that it would not be sought as long as the Church was uncomfortable. This betrayal is what worries many opponents of the Wall bill, as many of us lost faith with gay advocates and no longer trust the claims they now make about gay marriage. Why should we?

Xau: WHAT ABOUT RELIGION AND MARRIAGE?
– In our society marriage is governed by civil law and not by biblical values, for example we allow marriage between people of
different faiths or no faith. We also allow divorce although some churches are against it. Using the religion argument
against GLBT couples is a double-standard.
– Some Christian churches currently solemnise GLBT marriages and are discriminated against because the Government
doesn’t recognise these marriages in the same way it recognises the opposite-sex marriages performed in other churches.
– Religious celebrants are free to refuse to marry couples whose relationship they don’t agree with and this freedom will
remain when marriage equality is achieved.

• iMP: The Wall bill violates the religious and cultural sensibilities of thousands of NZers for the sake of a tiny minority. This is divisive. It violates their cultural and religious mentalities and actively overturns the philosophy underwhich marriage is founded and largely which secular NZ society is based. This is radical and determinative. When the public have had no serious direct say over the change, this is a significant cultural violation of the democratic principle. It also creates several tiers of “marriage” where diff. groups agree or disagree with the outcomes. This can only be corrosive and eroding of the institution of marriage and relationships in public as a norm. This is not an enhancing element to civil underpining.

Several gay people have actually even come out in print against the Wall bill, so it cannot even be said to represnet the gay community as a whole anyway, but just SOME gay people. many gay people donot want to be mainstreamed and don’t want marriage.

Xau WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
-The law does not say married heterosexual couples must have children. This is why we allow infertile couples to marry.
Using the infertility argument against GLBT couples is a double-standard.
-As many as 25% of same-sex couples are raising children. By allowing parents in these families the right to marry we are
providing their children with the same rights, respect and recognition as other children.
– Psychologists attest that children raised by same-sex couples are just as well adjusted, psychologically, sexually, intellectually
and socially as their peers.

• iMP: Th big issue here is the rights of children to have balanced gender role models as they grow and socialise as whole adults. Masculinity and feminity is needed for girls and boys who are biologically constructed naturally by both. This bill elevates the sexual attraction preferences of adults over the rights of children to cohesive, stable and balanced adult parenting. It does not mean gay people cannot be good parents; it means children will structurally be locked into HALF the story of humanness and that this is equal and as valid as dual-gender parenting, which it will never be.

Xau: WILL MARRIAGE EQUALITY CHANGE OR DIMINISH MARRIAGE?
-It will remove discrimination from marriage in the same way discrimination was removed when interracial couples in the United States were
allowed to marry in the 1960′s.
-The rules governing marriage have changed many times, for example, wives are no longer treated as the property of their
husbands, we now prohibit rape in marriage, and we allow divorce. But the basic definition of marriage as a lifelong
commitment between a loving couple has not changed and will not change.
– In countries which allow GLBT couples to marry, marriage still exists, no opposite-sex marriages have been harmed, and
the rates of younger heterosexual people marrying has actually increased

•iMP: marriage does change around the edges culturally, and always has, but this bill FUNDAMENTALLY alters the very essence of marriage to teh same extent that you were to, say, redefine hat “homosexuality” means (three people, or one man and one woman, or a granny and her budgie. How would you feel if we suggested that level of “redefinition”?). Current marriage law is based on diverse gender, pro-creational elements, and the imperative for children (nurture, and representing BOTH gender cultures of human beings). The Wall bill completely undermines those obsolutes.

extending rights to same-sex couples through the mechanism of civil unions.

For people who don’t like this, the remedy is simple: a de jure common law marriage.
People married by licence could obtain a civil anullment and marry without licence according to common law.
A de jure marriage has the advantage of the right of inheritance of real property (i.e. land as opposed to real estate), although this wouldn’t apply to children from a civil union.

UglyTruth (490) Says:
April 4th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
extending rights to same-sex couples through the mechanism of civil unions.

For people who don’t like this, the remedy is simple: a de jure common law marriage.
People married by licence could obtain a civil anullment and marry without licence according to common law.
A de jure marriage has the advantage of the right of inheritance of real property (i.e. land as opposed to real estate), although this wouldn’t apply to children from a civil union.

4.1 be defined as a relationship between two persons who live together as a couple who are not married to each other;

4.2 include a list of factors that could be taken into consideration when determining whether two persons live together as a couple, the same as used in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976:

4.2.1 the duration of the relationship;

4.2.2 the nature and extent of common residence;

4.2.3 whether or not a sexual relationship exists;

4.2.4 the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between the parties;

4.2.5 the ownership, use, and acquisition of property;

4.2.6 the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

4.2.7 the care and support of children;

4.2.8 the performance of household duties;

4.2.9 the reputation and public aspects of the relationship;

4.3 provide that none of the factors or combination of them is determinative of whether the persons in question are living together as a couple and that a decision-maker can have regard to such matters and attach such weight to any matter as may seem appropriate in the circumstances;

4.4 not include a requirement for the relationship to be of a minimum duration;

4.5 require that both persons in the relationship be at least 18 years, or under 18 but at least 16 years if the person has consent of their parent, guardian or the Court to the relationship, which reflects the Care of Children Bill’s approach to recognition of de facto relationships;

While I support the same sex marriage bill I am not sure why DPF would give any Green the right to post here. The Greens run the most heavily censored site in NZ. Disagree with them (and lets face it, disagreeing with the Greens is not hard given they are blatant liars) and you will be banned so I fail to see why DPF would allow the bastards any space at all.

First it was the gay community.
Then it was the gay and lesbian community.
Then it was the gay and lesbian and transgender community.
Then it became the gay and lesbian and , transgender, and transsextual, and
well hey, you fill in the gap …………

Whatever next…………
Where do we draw the line… ?
Why have a line ?

Why should you not be able to marry your cat ?

Anyone, can you come up with a reason why you shouldnt be able to marry your cat ?
You love your cat. Whats wrong with that ?

No, a de jure marriage is lawful, and a de facto one isn’t. A de facto marriage may look like a de jure marriage. De jure common law marriages exist independently of legislation and involve a man and a woman, not two persons.

They take power away from the state because of the husband’s role of protection and because of common law inheritance of land.

Ugly Truth can you name one common law marriage that can occur today, if it is outside the rules for marriage determined by the state? And even one case of inheritance of land for a marriage not recognised by the state?

Ugly Truth, one further question is not the concept of protector and protected, associated with the wife being owned property?

That’s the Marxist/Feminist narrative, propaganda designed to transfer children in particular to becoming property of the State which according to BIG GOVERNMENT types is better qualified to do it than the parents, particularly masculine ones.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I think Paul is confusing faith in God with procreative sex acts/bio-determinism of the species.

Or alternatively he’s simply enuciating God’s word as was given to him when he was writing Romans.

And associating homosexuality with false religion, is simply confirming this fall into classifying sexuality types by religious faith identity.

I’m not associating homosexuality with religion, the Bible is. It’s not very equivocal, is it, that passage. Not really open to misinterpretation, is it.

most idolators and atheists are neither homosexual nor celibate

Crikey. Really? And here was me thinking all those girls in mini-skirts in town drinking themselves into a stupor just like the boys do, thanks to feminism, were celibate. And you’re telling me they’re not?

Follow the passage, step-by-step. Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who follow a progressively more heinous path deeper into sin – the examples used seem esp related to pagan temple activity (very relevant when writing to Rome rather than say Hebrews)

Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship & temple prostitution. Given an understanding of sexual orientation (as distinct from sexual behaviour) a homosexual being led denying their own orientation (ex-gay ministries) to give up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the same sex for (them) unnatural opposite sex activity is the mirror image of what Paul is talking of. A gay or lesbian person seeking the lifelong commitment implicit in marriage to the gender they are naturally attracted to is not what is being discussed here at all.

I can understand & to some extent excuse how people read esp. some contemporary translations of this passage at face value as condemning homosexual sex – but scratch the surface with some scholarship & it’s no such clear cut thing.
I have less sympathy with is people who cherrypick passages out as if they had no relation to the verses & chapters that proceed and follow them and then use these verses to justify their judgements of others.
Paul did not write the Romans 1 20-32 SOUNDBITE to the Roman church he wrote a LETTER and it needs to be read as such! It is no accident that the VERY NEXT verses after the ones you quote read.
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?” Romans 2:1-4
Paul seems here to be echoing Jesus words in Matthew 7
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

I have less sympathy with is people who cherrypick passages out as if they had no relation to the verses & chapters that proceed and follow them and then use these verses to justify their judgements of others.

Except he wasn’t talking about idolators in the temple he was talking in general terms as verses 1-19 establish:

And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

I’m afraid Xau that’s what it says. Inconvenient, isn’t it. So I think you need to look to your own interpretation and revise that, if you want Biblical accuracy. If you want to make it up so it suits your own prejudged perspectives, why that’s entirely up to you, but don’t pretend it says something other than what it says.

And BTW, as people on here know, I rarely mention religion as my reason for objecting to gay marriage, it’s a feminist social engineering ploy. Guess who (or what) inspires feminism?

iMP (1,177) at 6:30 pm
• iMP: Xau, I am prepared to take you on, point-by-point. You deserve a considered answer to your post.
> Thanks for a decent reply which deserves a response (most here don’t) – to avoid an over long post I’ve just quoted tour statements (• iMP:) & given a brief reply (>) not my orig post. Sorry if not extensive – it’s too nice a morning

• iMP: All the science research, incl. that led by gay academics shows that homosexual relationships are marketedly different, particularly amongst gay men. This has a big impact on the application of marriage to gay relationships especially in relation to childrens’ rights to safe environments, stable homes and gender-balalnce role modeling.
I agree – DINK (double income no kids) relationships gay or straight do differ markedly to families. Most gay male couples don’t have kids. Most straight couples do. When a couple have kids they that changes priorities and behaviours. So most gay couples don’t have kids and so behave like couples w/o kids & your case is somehow that means gay couples with kids won’t change their priorities & behaviour be good parents rather than just a good DINK couple? Nonsense.

•iMP: This is a ridiculous basis for determining marriage. How do you quantify “love”. I love my rugby team, my country, my grandmother and my dog. Using this logic, you cannot deny the current restrictions on marriage (siblings, close relations, animals) nor can you deny other consenting adult sexualities, such as bigamy, polygamy, casual promiscuity, etc. The “ove” argument is a red herring and mis-applied.

> “How do you quantify “love”?” That’s a job for poets not me I’m afraid.
>Restrictions are validly justified on
siblings, close relations – undesirability (to put it mildly) of incest & genetic defects from inbreeding
animals – (I can’t believe I’m answering this) Marriage is a contract. Contracts require two parties capable of informed consent. No matter how smart you think your schnauzer is it can’t form or give informed consent.
bigamy, polygamy – almost always means 1 man many wives & has attendant effects of female disempowerment & creating a subclass of unmarried poor men most societies validly legislate against
casual promiscuity – sorry we are talking about marriage which involves sharing your property, live etc. I can’t see marriage pre casual shag as being in high demand (occasional movie Vegas exception noted If your talking about Shia Islamic practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut‘ah women in westerm society are NOT property so sorry but NO.

• iMP: I argue with the premise that homosexuality is either a “culture” or a “gender.” It is a human sexual attraction. Why anyone should be “proud” of this especially or seek to promote it with festivals and marches is an example of the inherent insecurity and contrived nature of the political arm of this lifestyle assemblage. The marketing arm of this mentality has won over the naive and the liberal throngs with a semantic propaganda that constantly portray the realities of what it is as something else. “Gay” itself as an appropriated word is the first example. It is a superlative with emotive connotations designed to promote.

>Homosexuality is not a gender (well inter-sex persons perhaps excepted) Not culture either although “gay culture” exists- like most minorities especially when ghettoised or repressed gay/lesbian people have produced “gay culture” as a response. Attraction is not the right word either (it it were we’d be things like blonde170-180cmNiceSmileBigT***osexual !).
Orientation is the accurate term (i.e. Same Sex Orientated or Opposite Sex Orientated (= the persons you’re attracted to will be the same/opposite gender as yourself. Note that this does not mean you’re automatically set to “randy goat” towards all or even most persons designated as this gender).
Rest of response I don’t see as warranting a reply except to correct a common myth…
Gay wasn’t a nice word stolen by nasty homosexuals – a quick etymology…”The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637.. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.” This sexualised usage narrowed to it’s current homosexual meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

• iMP: The LGBTi community has for decaades derided marriage and opposed it absolutely. The recent fashionable conversion to the merits of marriage suggests another agenda altogether, rather than any real commitment by gay activists to marriage itself.

>Where do you get this stuff from? Some gay radicals may be anti marriage (& now popular albeit odd bedfellows with the religious right) just like some feminists may be anti-marriage – doesn’t mean all feminists much less all women are anti marriage.
If you have any point it may be that an excluded group usually focuses on the next goal & at the time not even want what is at that point unobtainable. Kate Sheppard campaigning for womans suffrage would likely not be thinking of the possibility of women MP’s and Elizabeth McCombs in 1933 wouldn’t have been planning for women cabinet ministers never mind PM’s & Governors General They both would probably be genuinely horrified as frontline female soldiers. But NZ moved there, in steps and few would in retrospect call those steps wrong. (although those few probably include some who have posting on this thread while muttering about “slippery slopes” and “should never have given them the vote”)

• iMP: The law does not fail to provide marriage to gays, who are as free to marry as anyone else. The only exclusion here is the gay contrivance that they must be allowed to marry same genders, a right not open to heterosexuals either. It is a self-perpetuated prophesy. Gays are no therefore excluded structurally, but on the basis of new definitions that they impose on an institution that has never recognised these new constructs. Similarly, gays currently deny polygamists, bigamists et al in this redefinition of marriage bill. Why? Are they not entitled to impose their sexual attraction contrivances on marriage too?
> Don’t see any point replying to this nonsense unless to point out same crap was used against mixed race marriage.

• iMP: The gay community said over and over and over that Civil Unions was all they needed (check the Hansards), and that the civil union innovation was not a beachhead towards gay marriage. This was a community lie. many MPs supported civil unions on the assurances given, by gay MPs like Chris Carter and others, that there was no need for gay marriage and that it would not be sought as long as the Church was uncomfortable. This betrayal is what worries many opponents of the Wall bill, as many of us lost faith with gay advocates and no longer trust the claims they now make about gay marriage. Why should we?
> you are saying that advocated for civil unions? Really??

• iMP: The Wall bill violates the religious and cultural sensibilities of thousands of NZers for the sake of a tiny minority. This is divisive. It violates their cultural and religious mentalities and actively overturns the philosophy underwhich marriage is founded and largely which secular NZ society is based. This is radical and determinative. When the public have had no serious direct say over the change, this is a significant cultural violation of the democratic principle. It also creates several tiers of “marriage” where diff. groups agree or disagree with the outcomes. This can only be corrosive and eroding of the institution of marriage and relationships in public as a norm. This is not an enhancing element to civil underpining.
> The greater pluralistic principle underpinning western democracy is that liberty should be unimpeded save for a societies necessary restrictions for the greater good. The secular case for the necessity for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples has failed and that is why this bill will pass. There is no guarantee that someone else’s exercise of their liberty will not offend your sensibilities. Sorry tough get over it.

• iMP: Several gay people have actually even come out in print against the Wall bill, so it cannot even be said to represnet the gay community as a whole anyway, but just SOME gay people. many gay people donot want to be mainstreamed and don’t want marriage.

> A very large minority & possibly majority of Christians support the bill, hasn’t stopped Bob McCroskie representing to speak for Christianity against this bill. Seems a bit disingenuous for him to find an Irish gay bloke who disagrees to base his case on – he obviously couldn’t find a single Kiwi gay or lesbian to quote in support of his contention?!! http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/archives/ban/dangers-of-fatherlessness

• iMP: Th big issue here is the rights of children to have balanced gender role models as they grow and socialise as whole adults. Masculinity and feminity is needed for girls and boys who are biologically constructed naturally by both. This bill elevates the sexual attraction preferences of adults over the rights of children to cohesive, stable and balanced adult parenting. It does not mean gay people cannot be good parents; it means children will structurally be locked into HALF the story of humanness and that this is equal and as valid as dual-gender parenting, which it will never be.
> lesbian & gay marriage won’t mean kids suddenly loose a parent! It simply means that children in gay or lesbian families will have the security of two full legal parents & guardians not one. Thats a better thing. Your arguments about male/male or female/female parents being less “valid” than male/female are irrelevant. Just to note most studies don’t show any difference – although all studies do show having the same two parents in a committed relationship (marriage) over childhood does improve outcomes compared with other models.
The fav quoted study showing negative outcomes for same gender parenting compares children whose m/f parents divorced who were then subsequently for at least a few months on a same sex household against children whose m/f parents remained in a stable relationship. So messy divorce, hurt parents & coping with a parents new partner = less favourable outcomes than the same consistent two parents. Doh! Sounds more like a damn good reason to ensure same sex orientated people end up in stable relations with the same sex (ideally marriage) rather than marrying opposite to for fill societies/family expectations.

•iMP: marriage does change around the edges culturally, and always has, but this bill FUNDAMENTALLY alters the very essence of marriage to teh same extent that you were to, say, redefine hat “homosexuality” means (three people, or one man and one woman, or a granny and her budgie. How would you feel if we suggested that level of “redefinition”?). Current marriage law is based on diverse gender, pro-creational elements, and the imperative for children (nurture, and representing BOTH gender cultures of human beings). The Wall bill completely undermines those obsolutes.

> knock off the fixation with marrying animals & birds please you’re making me queasy.
> I googled “essence of marriage” and came up (hit #2) with a list of quotes from Timothy Keller (Keller is a Presbyterian pastor on record as anti same sex marriage as it happens).http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/16321346-the-meaning-of-marriage-facing-the-complexities-of-commitment-with-the
The quotes are picked by his (presumably conservative Christian) readership as the essential ones from his “The Meaning of Marriage” book. They’re all about…
love,
commitment,
friendship,
faith,
truth,
sacrifice,
covenant,
union,
self-giving…
(not one about children or male/female for that matter).
Seems that what this conservative Christian readership says* is essential about marriage is exactly what matters to all people (give or take a faith comment) including gay & lesbian couples.
**And that people is why gay & lesbian couples want to marry.**

*(at least what conservatives say when being candid & honest rather than when just trying to think of reasons to oppose marriage equality)

Whatever marriage is about, the essential difference between marriage and all other relationships is copulation and raising any offspring. The notion of homosexual acts in marriage is repugnant to most people who can think straight, however tolerant they may be of homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not an orientation any more than paedophilia is an orientation. The essential difference between the two is most societies deem children cannot give consent and need protection, therefore paedophilia is unacceptable and illegal.

Homosexual marriage is a smokescreen. The real objective is to make buggery the equivalence of coition.

Sir Cliff might have spoken frankly but doubt his honesty. I have heard of a number of women who after years of marriage decide to bat for the other team. There is one on TV most nights.

Cliff reckons he was not gay in 1996 when he was 50 but is now. That is highly unlikely. Some bisexuals get married for a number of reasons possibly children but either get caught out or or maybe their conscience catches up with them.

I will take any thumbs down as they believe Cliff’s story that is highly unlikely.

Reid, Romans Chapter 1 has to be considered in context – as to the culture of the times.

Paul was a Roman citizen who had formed churches in the Greek world. Jews dissed Greek religion as idolatrous and without knowledge of a true God.

Rome ruled over Greece and Romans looked down on Greeks as an inferior people, without their Roman virtue or strength.

In the vernacular of the times, the inferior were treated as immoral, Romans would sexually exploit their young slaves and the young slaves of other free born men, male and female alike. In the Senate of Rome, there was a tradition of elder statesmen being patrons of younger men, young men who would do anything for money/debt repayment or access to power by cronyism.

Rome was the empire in succession to Greece, in succession to Persia, in succession to Babylon. The theme in Daniel, of empires as beasts, is continued in Revelation. In many ways this first chapter in Romans connects the two works.

Paul’s goal was Christian empire, where Rome would no longer be the base of the immoral imperial beast, but the moral city and then it would be those outside of Rome who would be the immoral. He posed the Christian Greek as redeemed from immorality. The moral as of Creator God faith and the immoral as the rest, so that included Rome as of the immoral world until it became a Christian city.

This challenged Rome as they associated morality with strength and power. But when Rome was struggling in the world and saw itself as weak, they themselves adopted the Christian religion.